Some impressions I gathered from reading the rus forums and observations:

Positivists make an impression like they are in search of updates all the time - new people, new topics, new impressions - and they easily partake in what they find, but discard it just as easily. Accepting and affirming at first - more critical and rejecting later down the road. The danger seems to be excessive boredom and leaving 'good stuff' behind not matter its previous value. Don't tie up ends too well. Easier to get their interest and affirmation at first, however, they will turn their attention elsewhere ignoring what has already been achieved. Two positivists strike up acquaintance with ease, but later their excitement wanes.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

Positivist + negativist dynamic is similar to "aggressor/victim" where positivist assume a more offensive, advancing role, being driven by a desire to make then connection and be accepted, and negativist assumes a defensive/selective position, blocking all the inroads and raising shield against being 'infiltrated'. (Making EIEs and ILIs be 'victims' with a side serving of 'victim' sauce, while LSIs and SEEs wave their flags higher than anyone else.)

Positivists make an impression like they are in search of updates all the time - new people, new topics, new impressions - and they easily partake in what they find, but discard it just as easily. Accepting and affirming at first - more critical and rejecting later down the road. The danger seems to be excessive boredom and leaving 'good stuff' behind not matter its previous value. Don't tie up ends too well. Easier to get their interest and affirmation at first, however, they will turn their attention elsewhere ignoring what has already been achieved. Two positivists strike up acquaintance with ease, but later their excitement wanes.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

Positivist + negativist dynamic is similar to "aggressor/victim" where positivist assume a more offensive, advancing role, being driven by a desire to make then connection and be accepted, and negativist assumes a defensive/selective position, blocking all the inroads and raising shield against being 'infiltrated'. (Making EIEs and ILIs be 'victims' with a side serving of 'victim' sauce, while LSIs and SEEs wave their flags higher than anyone else.)

"The positivists – the negativists. This is a division of types according to their reaction to new information. The negativist's first reaction is usually negative: "No". Later he/she can accept, agree to something, but the very first reaction is always aversion. Positivists' first reaction is acceptance. You can try to observe people yourself from this point of view. How do you receive new information even before you know whether it corresponds to your description of the world or not? Imagine something completely new presents itself to you. In one case it is a tendency to protect the description of the world, in the other – a tendency to change and expand. This could remain unnoticed if not observed specially. But simple observation reveals this attribute." -Reinin

Some impressions I gathered from reading the rus forums and observations:

Positivists make an impression like they are in search of updates all the time - new people, new topics, new impressions - and they easily partake in what they find, but discard it just as easily. Accepting and affirming at first - more critical and rejecting later down the road. The danger seems to be excessive boredom and leaving 'good stuff' behind not matter its previous value. Don't tie up ends too well. Easier to get their interest and affirmation at first, however, they will turn their attention elsewhere ignoring what has already been achieved. Two positivists strike up acquaintance with ease, but later their excitement wanes.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

Positivist + negativist dynamic is similar to "aggressor/victim" where positivist assume a more offensive, advancing role, being driven by a desire to make then connection and be accepted, and negativist assumes a defensive/selective position, blocking all the inroads and raising shield against being 'infiltrated'. (Making EIEs and ILIs be 'victims' with a side serving of 'victim' sauce, while LSIs and SEEs wave their flags higher than anyone else.)

"The positivists – the negativists. This is a division of types according to their reaction to new information. The negativist's first reaction is usually negative: "No". Later he/she can accept, agree to something, but the very first reaction is always aversion. Positivists' first reaction is acceptance. You can try to observe people yourself from this point of view. How do you receive new information even before you know whether it corresponds to your description of the world or not? Imagine something completely new presents itself to you. In one case it is a tendency to protect the description of the world, in the other – a tendency to change and expand. This could remain unnoticed if not observed specially. But simple observation reveals this attribute." -Reinin

Hmmm, interesting I see how I could relate to both of those descritpions. I am often open to new ideas, but I do not accept them immediately but look at them as possibilities to consider. So it's not an immediate yes, it's an immediate maybe. Prob more negativist then... I'm an optomistic negativist.

Edit: An example, I meet a new very (to me) interesting person, we talk for a long time and I am certain that i really do like this very interesting person and have a gut feeling they are trustworthy and a possible great addition in my life. They ask me if i would like to hang out/exchange numbers/facebook etc whatever.... then i may become more concerned and want time to think about that. It will usually take me some time to actually become comfortable with this and considerable effort on the part of the new person.

In terms of relationships, I am very fussy in my mind though outwardly it may not seem so. I am very careful about serious comittments...though I may come across as ready to jump into something because i often focus on it internally for a long time and do not talk to others about it until I have reached a decision or crossroads.

Prob aloso has something to do with being Enneagram 7w6 with sp/sx stacking

Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.

In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.

When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.

So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.

Some impressions I gathered from reading the rus forums and observations:

Positivists make an impression like they are in search of updates all the time - new people, new topics, new impressions - and they easily partake in what they find, but discard it just as easily. Accepting and affirming at first - more critical and rejecting later down the road. The danger seems to be excessive boredom and leaving 'good stuff' behind not matter its previous value. Don't tie up ends too well. Easier to get their interest and affirmation at first, however, they will turn their attention elsewhere ignoring what has already been achieved. Two positivists strike up acquaintance with ease, but later their excitement wanes.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

This describes my relationship(s) perfectly hahaha. You're good at this socionics shit.

"The positivists – the negativists. This is a division of types according to their reaction to new information. The negativist's first reaction is usually negative: "No". Later he/she can accept, agree to something, but the very first reaction is always aversion. Positivists' first reaction is acceptance. You can try to observe people yourself from this point of view. How do you receive new information even before you know whether it corresponds to your description of the world or not? Imagine something completely new presents itself to you. In one case it is a tendency to protect the description of the world, in the other – a tendency to change and expand. This could remain unnoticed if not observed specially. But simple observation reveals this attribute." -Reinin

I think I may have realized one of the things that bothers me about this dichotomy. at the irony.

Fine. Since noone would guess/cares...
And I'm too ready to move on...

The positivists – the negativists. This is a division of types according to their reaction to new information. The negativist's first reaction is usually negative: "No". Later he/she can accept, agree to something, but the very first reaction is always aversion. Positivists' first reaction is acceptance.

What would it mean if you have a "negativist" who reads this and immediately accepts it as describing them, or immediately identifies with it?

Fine. Since noone would guess/cares...
And I'm too ready to move on...

What would it mean if you have a "negativist" who reads this and immediately accepts it as describing them, or immediately identifies with it?

Even more than that though it's lolable that the positivists all agree and negativists disagree/question. Almost rote.

Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.

In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.

When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.

So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.

That the negative barrier is not beyond reason?
Oh, it was rhetorical and about typing Eliza. nvm.

Not necessarily about Eliza. And not in the way one would immediately think it might be.

The description is rather black-and-white. One or the other. But I think differing situations might create differing responses. When I read these things, I approach it as best I can with a clear mind, not with a filter of me being one or the other. So that when I read these types of descriptions, i hold the info in 'limbo' as I look at various past actions and responses of mine, others, etc, to see where it might fit or not fit, how much of each, so I can maybe better see/understand what it is referring to. In this particular case, there are plenty of times when I don't, and there are some times when I do.

For example, when my neighbor friend and I are at lunch, and she tells me the cost as I'm digging for money from my purse, and she gives a super high price, initially i 'accept' her price as being the right price. (She's my friend, why would she lie to me?) But I can't believe that it really cost that much so I stop digging around and look at the bill myself, flabberghasted by the price she'd told me. At which point she'll laugh because I fell for her little prank.

All that happens within less than a minute. And it's in situations where I trust the person giving me the information, and the information is about something external to me, rather than internal. Also, why would I initially doubt someone's description of their own internal feelings, or thoughts? Surely they would know better than I, right? Yes, over time I might learn to distrust them.

Is putting the info in limbo "acceptance", or "rejection"?
It's not really either, it's just on hold until more information can come in.
And it might take a long time before there IS acceptance, if it comes at all.

Anyways, so as I was weighing these things in my mind, questioning this particular dichotomy, I was also keeping in mind some people's reactions to it. Some questioned it as well, some saw both possibilities within their own behavior, and some immediately identified with one or the other. So why the hell couldn't I pick one as being the one that fit?? Why do some people like this dichotomy a lot, and others, like me, not so much?

And then I realized that that in itself could be an example of Negativism.
And laughed.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

Sweet, this'll be the perfect excuse to never interact with others again.

Some impressions I gathered from reading the rus forums and observations:

Positivists make an impression like they are in search of updates all the time - new people, new topics, new impressions - and they easily partake in what they find, but discard it just as easily. Accepting and affirming at first - more critical and rejecting later down the road. The danger seems to be excessive boredom and leaving 'good stuff' behind not matter its previous value. Don't tie up ends too well. Easier to get their interest and affirmation at first, however, they will turn their attention elsewhere ignoring what has already been achieved. Two positivists strike up acquaintance with ease, but later their excitement wanes.

Negativists have a high initial barrier to entry. They are like a fortress to which one needs to find an open latch to enter, but once that leeway has been found and taken they become very vulnerable. Once they have assimilated something, allowed it through their 'shield', they come rely on it too much and don't wish to let go of it. The danger here is excessive curbing and barricading/shielding off, as well as letting subversive and false elements within. Ends wound up too tightly, making it extra difficult to find that leeway. However, positivists enjoy this challenge of trying to get close to them. Two negativists take a while to grind up through each other's barriers, then they don't let go.

Positivist + negativist dynamic is similar to "aggressor/victim" where positivist assume a more offensive, advancing role, being driven by a desire to make then connection and be accepted, and negativist assumes a defensive/selective position, blocking all the inroads and raising shield against being 'infiltrated'. (Making EIEs and ILIs be 'victims' with a side serving of 'victim' sauce, while LSIs and SEEs wave their flags higher than anyone else.)

I think negativism and positivism form a good duality.

This is a hard thing to describe because the expression can be quite different depending on type.

One of the big differences I see between positivist and negativists esp in the socionics community is that negativists are much more invested in the community and this topic while often simultaneously rejecting it.

Positivists are more accepting of the topic of study while at the same time more distant and sometimes bored with the topic. However I think the difference is that negativist focus on what they reject about this topic and ways to criticize and positivist focus on what they accept about this topic and branch off elsewhere for more information(coming back sometime to see what's new).

...
Anyways, so as I was weighing these things in my mind, questioning this particular dichotomy, I was also keeping in mind some people's reactions to it. Some questioned it as well, some saw both possibilities within their own behavior, and some immediately identified with one or the other. So why the hell couldn't I pick one as being the one that fit?? Why do some people like this dichotomy a lot, and others, like me, not so much?

And then I realized that that in itself could be an example of Negativism.
And laughed.

All I know is I had to really study the Wikisocion definition of Negativist/Postivist before I realized, yes, I am Negativist. I also read with an open mind, having previously considered myself an Optimist, so, I must be Postivist, right? Maritsa and I discussed it on a thread here because she is Positivist, and at the time we decided she (and her type) are negative Positivists and mine (you usually think of us as sunny disposition) are positive Negativists...

However, when I read Siuntal's little thing here, I knew instantly, and I felt vulnerable, exposed, as it was unexpected. I also recognized my Postivist SLI quickly. That barrier thing where a person has to find the latch. Exactly. Its a bit of the Aggressor/Victim dynamic the interaction. Then I get a Stockholm Syndrome-like attachment once I open the door and don't want to let the aggressor out..

Since Duals are always opposite on Positivist/Negativist, I am thinking there might be some sort of Erotic Type sub-component to the Postivist/Negativist thing. What do you think, @siuntal?

My SLI made (and surprised me with) the first move towards me, and I responded*. It was a gentle Delta move, but sure caused a powerful reaction in me. It really was sort of like Aggressor/Victim. Even though I am E and he is I, and you might think that woudl mean I might make the first move (but I pretty much never have). But it doesn't seem to work that way.

LSE is Caregiver/Teacher Negativist), and
...EII is Childlike/Student Positivist ).**

I have an EII friend IRL I have known a long time who is now involved in what is likely her first Dual relationship which will probably be forever, I feel sure. She has dated and fallen in love too many times (for me) but I feel sure this is the last for her. They dated a long time platonically, while she knew there was romance brewing under the surface and waited and waited while the LSE was waiting to feel safe/ready/whatever to make the first move. Finally, after no moves for the longest time ever, after a nice date they were discussing something, I forgot what, and she had an opening to say, "Maybe you better kiss me then." She knew he wanted to but it was she who basically had to make the first move by saying that. She, the Introvert Postivist. (Then they had fireworks, now they are bff).

I guess it was your "victim with victim sauce" comment that made me think of this, Siuntal.

Then you have the "Aggressors with Aggressor sauce" types, like positivist-SLE, which I have a story to go with but its too late. Oh, I just thought of another (the SLE story is too long). SEE. That woudl be Aggressor with Aggressor sauce, too, as that is the erotic type and because SEE is Positivist. My SEE friend is quite the Agreessor with guys, she is way too "get to the point". (She is Mormon, and wants to get married again, dates Mormons, who supposedly wan to marry but they flee from her even though she is pretty and personable, because she is too aggressively open too soon about what she wants (marriage ASAP). She really trips up on it...

What do you think of this theory, Siuntal, of postivist/negativist being an addendum to Erotic types??

______________________
*In retrospect, to a place I have gone back in time to time and again since it changed my life, it was as if in observing me while we talked (or remembering who I am from our writing) he somehow saw the opening, and I was not even realizing I had a barrier up, but I did. In one swift and very subtle move he was there with the key and opened the door. LOL, this is not an erotic exchange I am describing, though I certainly had that reaction...

I made a quick display for you all to see the differences in how these "work"

Interesting.
I use the "pretty pattern" model of the socion to help me see how the parts and types fit together.
With that in mind, I would have used the NTSFN/NFSTN cycles (supervisory cycles) rather than "aristocratic/democratic" in your chart
Algorithmic = dynamic -NTSFN
Holographic = static -NFSTN
Deduction = static +NTSFN
Vorticol = dynamic +NFSTN

Your chart helped clear some stuff up. (Have I mentioned I like charts?? Less likely for my mind to go all over the place like it does with lots of text, lol.)
And it gives me an easier way of looking at the cognitive styles, thank you for sharing it.

Anyways, your chart helps show something I hadn't caught before.
Duals are paired up deduction w/ deduction and induction w/ induction.
So, one of the pairs pulls in vasts amount of information, but passes on more limited info which the other can use, who then provides feedback which can expand the previous partner's database.

For example, the Holographic partner looks at the info in different ways, passing one way of looking at it to the Vortical partner who does a mental trial&error method with the info to see if that's actually a good way of looking at it or not, which provides feedback to the Holographic partner who can use the feedback to alter their 'image' of the info. In a cycle helping each other process something.

But, I'm not sure how that might work with the deductive partners.
The Algorithmic partner sorts the info for patterns to deduce, passes those patterns on to the Causal partner who transforms it into if-then deductions. Does this if-then feedback help the Algorithmic partner deduce new/different patterns? Worded that way, it seems like the answer might be yes. But I think I am going to need to think on that one a bit. This isn't exactly something that I've looked at before, so if you have any examples, Jadae, I'd appreciate you sharing them.

(Note, the above was thinking aloud, so if it's too confusing, then don't bother, heh.)

Interesting.
I use the "pretty pattern" model of the socion to help me see how the parts and types fit together.
With that in mind, I would have used the NTSFN/NFSTN cycles (supervisory cycles) rather than "aristocratic/democratic" in your chart
Algorithmic = dynamic -NTSFN
Holographic = static -NFSTN
Deduction = static +NTSFN
Vorticol = dynamic +NFSTN

Your chart helped clear some stuff up. (Have I mentioned I like charts?? Less likely for my mind to go all over the place like it does with lots of text, lol.)
And it gives me an easier way of looking at the cognitive styles, thank you for sharing it.

Anyways, your chart helps show something I hadn't caught before.Duals are paired up deduction w/ deduction and induction w/ induction.
So, one of the pairs pulls in vasts amount of information, but passes on more limited info which the other can use, who then provides feedback which can expand the previous partner's database.

For example, the Holographic partner looks at the info in different ways, passing one way of looking at it to the Vortical partner who does a mental trial&error method with the info to see if that's actually a good way of looking at it or not, which provides feedback to the Holographic partner who can use the feedback to alter their 'image' of the info. In a cycle helping each other process something.

But, I'm not sure how that might work with the deductive partners.
The Algorithmic partner sorts the info for patterns to deduce, passes those patterns on to the Causal partner who transforms it into if-then deductions. Does this if-then feedback help the Algorithmic partner deduce new/different patterns? Worded that way, it seems like the answer might be yes. But I think I am going to need to think on that one a bit. This isn't exactly something that I've looked at before, so if you have any examples, Jadae, I'd appreciate you sharing them.

(Note, the above was thinking aloud, so if it's too confusing, then don't bother, heh.)

That was interesting commentary, @anndelise. I didn;'t "get" it all but I got some of it. I think you were onto something. Particularly the bolded part. I am going to give it a better look later, because like Jadae's chart its not an easy read for me.

I am hoping someone gets my theory built on what @siuntal said. (or, coherently explains why it does not work).

I got to thinking this morning, of how Duals are always opposite on Positivist/Negativist. Its part of what makes the relations peaceful. In the following explanation I'm using the keyboard symbols as little visual drawings, and calling the Negativist the Receiver, because Postivist has to come after them to open the latch, and calling the positivist the Pouncer, or pursuer:

With P/N in a pair its Pounce! -> )Receive. Satisfying.
With P/P in a pair, it would be Pounce!-> <-Pounce! Very conflict producing, at each other, and no one receiving.
And N/N together Receive<- -> Receive, they are just not connecting.

If you wanted to understand it, he (or someone) would have an easier time helping you if you first mentioned what parts you DO understand.

Yes, I first have to go over slowly to see what I do understand. Requires getting caught up in another paradigm. Takes some effort, so I will do that when I can, Lordwilling other things don't distract me. Probably I will start with your explanation, since it spoke to me.

...
With that in mind, I would have used the NTSFN/NFSTN cycles (supervisory cycles) rather than "aristocratic/democratic" in your chart
Algorithmic = dynamic -NTSFN
Holographic = static -NFSTN
Deduction = static +NTSFN
Vorticol = dynamic +NFSTN

Okay lets start here with the first paragraph and then maybe I can go forward more with it. I pretty much I am not getting any of the above. These terms you are using, I have not seen them before in Socionics. Are they Socionics terms i just have never run across (not like my Socionics research is extensive, so, certainly possible. Or, maybe its was something I skimmed over in my research with my "Result" in sight...) or are these part of a made-up vocabulary to understand things? ?

Okay lets start here with the first paragraph and then maybe I can go forward more with it. I pretty much I am not getting any of the above. These terms you are using, I have not seen them before in Socionics. Are they Socionics terms i just have never run across (not like my Socionics research is extensive, so, certainly possible. Or, maybe its was something I skimmed over in my research with my "Result" in sight...) or are these part of a made-up vocabulary to understand things? ?

Okay lets start here with the first paragraph and then maybe I can go forward more with it. I pretty much I am not getting any of the above. These terms you are using, I have not seen them before in Socionics. Are they Socionics terms i just have never run across (not like my Socionics research is extensive, so, certainly possible. Or, maybe its was something I skimmed over in my research with my "Result" in sight...) or are these part of a made-up vocabulary to understand things? ?

That was interesting commentary, @anndelise. I didn;'t "get" it all but I got some of it. I think you were onto something. Particularly the bolded part. I am going to give it a better look later, because like Jadae's chart its not an easy read for me.

Ftr, i'm not too sure about the use of the terms "deduction/induction" which @Jadae used.
That post was thinking out loud, and not to be taken as an assertion. And it only got posted again because Jadae asked for it back after I had deleted it.

Edited to add: i guess gulenko did use deductive/inductive as his terms.

@anndelise, I can't believe you made me this nice video. Thanks. I just saw it now and I just started looking at it. And I may have to take off and pick up my son from practice. But I want say I am impressed and humbled you would do this. Thanks.

((Note: grrr, i just saw at the very end that i had missed adding a line to the + sign at the bottom of the top left square, sorry, to edit it would be too much work.))

That was super! And I LOVE charts. I find multisensory themes usually appeal and help everyone. So anyway, thats a big thanks for taking the time to make this vid, i thought it was very comprehensive. You should make more of these btw, if you can get into it.

Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.

In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.

When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.

So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.